Add to ORKGThe Court determined that Nevada law does not recognize implied restrictive covenants based on a common development scheme, and the Court did not adopt the doctrine under these facts. Additionally, the Court held that, unlike common law disclosure requirements, claims arising from the duties of a licensee under NRS Chapter 645 could not be waived. Finally, it held that attorney fees and costs should only be awarded where a claim is without reasonable ground, or to harass the prevailing party
The Court determined that attorneys do not qualify as agents for the purposes of retaliatory action ...
The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate follo...
The Court found that a foreclosure sale is not invalid due to lack of notice where: (1) a homeowners...
The Court determined that Nevada law does not recognize implied restrictive covenants based on a com...
The Court determined that (1) any party seeking attorney fees as special damages must comply with NR...
The Court held that where an underlying transaction involves interstate commerce, the FAA (Federal A...
The Court concluded that the promissory note, which had security interest by both a deed of trust of...
The Court considers whether the time limitations of NRS 107.080(5)-(6) bars an action challenging an...
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court must consider the factors from the Third Resta...
The Court affirmed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined that dee...
The Court held that jury instructions must be aligned with a Nevada statute if the Nevada statute ha...
The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-cli...
The Court determined that (1) NRS 155.190(1)(h) only grants the Court appellate jurisdiction over th...
The Court considered a writ of mandamus challenging district court orders denying summary judgment o...
The Court determined that, under provisions of NRS 116.31162, when an HOA records a notice of a fore...
The Court determined that attorneys do not qualify as agents for the purposes of retaliatory action ...
The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate follo...
The Court found that a foreclosure sale is not invalid due to lack of notice where: (1) a homeowners...
The Court determined that Nevada law does not recognize implied restrictive covenants based on a com...
The Court determined that (1) any party seeking attorney fees as special damages must comply with NR...
The Court held that where an underlying transaction involves interstate commerce, the FAA (Federal A...
The Court concluded that the promissory note, which had security interest by both a deed of trust of...
The Court considers whether the time limitations of NRS 107.080(5)-(6) bars an action challenging an...
The Nevada Supreme Court held that the district court must consider the factors from the Third Resta...
The Court affirmed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined that dee...
The Court held that jury instructions must be aligned with a Nevada statute if the Nevada statute ha...
The Court held that the business judgment rule defense alone does not mandate waiver of attorney-cli...
The Court determined that (1) NRS 155.190(1)(h) only grants the Court appellate jurisdiction over th...
The Court considered a writ of mandamus challenging district court orders denying summary judgment o...
The Court determined that, under provisions of NRS 116.31162, when an HOA records a notice of a fore...
The Court determined that attorneys do not qualify as agents for the purposes of retaliatory action ...
The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate follo...
The Court found that a foreclosure sale is not invalid due to lack of notice where: (1) a homeowners...